God Is Grea– Wait, What?

Via My Confined Space:

SunsetDeath



[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

  • http://nogodsallowed.wordpress.com cg

    Love it. I’d like to get a framed version to sit next to my in-laws’ “Footprints in the Sand” picture.

  • http://emergingdesign.blogspot.com Jim RL

    Well, Genesis tells us quite explicitedly that God needs his rest, and I bet making a beautiful sunset like that would take a lot out of him. So, it’s pretty unfair to say he “let them die” when he was obviously too tired to stop it. God can only do so much, and are you really willing to give up beautiful sunsets to feed starving children?

  • http://www.ohthethinksyoucanthink.blogspot.com Linda

    Jim RL

    That doesn’t even make any sense. God doesn’t need any rest. He is God. He didn’t let them die. We let them die. And we are still. Not only that, we are letting future generations of children die as well.

    God’s rest does not mean the same as our rest. If you’re a Christian, you should know that.

    God allows us to try to be God for one reason only. We will not realize that we’re not God unless we try to be…

  • Jen

    I think Jim RL is being sarcastic. I hope.

    I agree in general that religious people seem to think their god is really busy helping them ace tests or get a promotion, and I do always wonder why it seems that he is too busy doing stupid shit to do things that really matter. Hmmm….

  • Mriana

    I do always wonder why it seems that he is too busy doing stupid shit to do things that really matter.

    Are you sure God is doing it? Couldn’t it be the “Law of Nature”? Or maybe it’s something else.

  • http://olvlzl.blogspot.com/ olvlzl, no ism, no ist

    You could say that while he raised the money to build the Center for Inquiry, Paul Kurtz let thousands of starving children die. Or that any one of us is as we sit here reading and typing.

    You really think this kind of thing is going to get more atheists elected? Well, it isn’t.

  • Mriana

    What does Paul Kurtz have to do with it? And who says creating CSH and CFI hasn’t done good things after it was created? olvlzl, I really think you are stretching things a bit. Kurtz is not God, he’s not nature, and would never say he is. I seriously doubt Kurtz has anything to do with this subject or even “Natural Law”.

  • es

    Paul Kurtz is not omnipotent, last time I checked. The Christian God supposedly is.

    If God exists, he does not have to let millions of children be born only to suffer and die painful deaths. But he does.

    On the other hand, maybe that’s God’s will. Since God allows millions to die every year without intervening, maybe that’s what he really wants.

    If God answers your prayers but not these children’s, then maybe we shouldn’t interfere with God’s plan for them.

  • http://paxnortona.notfrisco2.com Joel Sax

    So what are you doing to help starving children? Or are they just a tool for mocking? I don’t see where this kind of thing helps one become a better person.

  • Jen

    Yup, Joel, the point of this is to mock hungry children. Oh wait, no it isn’t. Its to mock the idea that a god would rather make a sunset than help starving children, and that perhaps instead of praising god for making a sunset, maybe we should be asking him why he doesn’t help those children.

    As to what I am doing to help starving children: absolutely nothing. We all have a limited amount of time and money, and I have other causes I support. That doesn’t mean I hate the starving children, just that there are many important causes.

    olvlzl, who is talking about getting atheists elected? You are so strange. Maybe typing out this response means that someone is dying of starvation right now. Well, unlike god, I am not all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-caring. I can’t snap my god-fingers and fix the world. Neither can Paul Kurtz.

  • http://www.jubilatores.com/ Charissa

    I’m a pediatric intensive care nurse. Whenever I hear someone say “I will pray and God will heal her”, I bite my tongue. I remember all the mortally wounded and deathly ill children who died.

  • Simon

    This is about mocking the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient God who is also good (seems unlikely, for hopefully obvious reasons). It is also about mocking what seems to be a common view that this character ‘God’ should get credit for everything good in the world, no matter how mundane or scientifically explainable (lovely sunsets, a team winning a football game, somebody getting a promotion, etc) but no blame for anything bad (natural disasters, starving children).

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    If God exists, he does not have to let millions of children be born only to suffer and die painful deaths. But he does.

    No he doesn’t.

    It’s called free will.

    You love being an atheist and God gives you free will to be one. If God decided to take control of everything then no children would die, but then this blog wouldn’t exist, nor would atheists.

    Fortunately God loves us enough to let us have free will, sadly some of us don’t know what to do with that free will, even sadder is that most fellow Christians don’t really know what to do with this free will thing either.

  • Mriana

    You know, this sounds like the Dark Ages and before we discovered germs made people sick and killed people- not a deity or demon. Famin causes starvation, not some deity or demon. Daught causes famin. Weather patterns causes daught.

    What I am saying is there is no devine intervention causing the deaths of millions of children. This happens in all groups of animals. It is nature’s built in population control. If there are too many for the resources to sustain, there is starvation and disease even.

    However, in this day and age there is surpluses of food, grown and raised by humans, in various areas of the world and with transportation as good as it is, we, as humans could cut down on starvation in this world. Medicine, made by humans, is far more superior than what it use to be, thus we, the humans, can cut down on the death rate from disease.

    Why don’t we? I don’t know, but you know what… If we did, we’d have another problem. Starvation and disease due to over poplulation. After a while, we’d overwork the land trying to feed a larger world population. So, in the end, we will still have the issues of overpopulation and nature’s way of controlling it. Even without the hand of man, deer would still have the same issues. We don’t have to have deer season to control the deer population- nature would do it for us- through disease and starvation due to lack of resources.

    Even the cycle of humans have gone the same way- when resources were low, more people were sick, starved, and died. Overpopulation of rats caused the Black plague, not the wrath of some diety. Once that was controlled and people figured out what to do about it, fewer people died and soon the Black plague past.

    Once people get past superstition, something is generally done about these things that cause the death of millions, but we cannot irradicate death completely. It is a natural consequence of life.

  • FromUpNorth

    That doesn’t even make any sense. God doesn’t need any rest. He is God. He didn’t let them die. We let them die. And we are still. Not only that, we are letting future generations of children die as well.

    Yes, but if we let them die, is it not the case that this could only be the case because God allows us to let them die? Or are you saying that God would be powerless to intervene to prevent them from dying?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    God allows us to let them die?

    You could put it like that but it’s a bit emotionally charged. Do you want to be totally controlled in everything you do, or do you want to make your own decisions?

  • FromUpNorth

    It’s called free will.

    You love being an atheist and God gives you free will to be one. If God decided to take control of everything then no children would die, but then this blog wouldn’t exist, nor would atheists.

    In assessing the moral culpability of God for the deaths of innocent children, this argument seems to do more than to convict him of sins of omission rather than sins of commission.

    Why not play the Original Sin card and argue that there is no such thing as an “innocent child”? Don’t we all — adults, infants, newborns, “unborn children,” all deserve death (including death by starvation) because of what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden?

  • FromUpNorth

    You could put it like that but it’s a bit emotionally charged. Do you want to be totally controlled in everything you do, or do you want to make your own decisions?

    If I’m a starving child, I probably want to be fed, not to make any decisions.

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    If I’m a starving child, I probably want to be fed, not to make any decisions.

    Are you a starving child or a hypocrite?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    Why not play the Original Sin card and argue that there is no such thing as an “innocent child”? Don’t we all — adults, infants, newborns, “unborn children,” all deserve death (including death by starvation) because of what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden?

    Sure, we all deserve death, but I don’t think any rational member of humanity would say that children/infants deserve death.

    And I don’t think that God wants children to starve, but what would you have him do? Clean up every time after you’ve made a mess of the world? As a loving parent I have to allow my children to make mistakes, how else are they going to learn from there mistakes.

    The problem is (and here’s your original sin card) that because of the fall of man, we’re all but a shallow representation of what God intended for us. And with no moral code for humans to follow, we allow ourselves to be consumed by greed etc.

    The Church, atheists and Christians are all in the same boat, we’re not doing what we should be – sure there are some churches/groups that are doing what we should be doing – but there’s not enough to get the job done.

    Does that make God guilty?

  • FromUpNorth

    Are you a starving child or a hypocrite?

    I assume that the above is an attempt on your part at a gratuitous insult, since it is obviously not an attempt at continued serious discussion. In respect to such behavior, are you a typical Christian?

  • Polly

    As a loving parent I have to allow my children to make mistakes, how else are they going to learn from there mistakes.

    Would you allow your children to die in the process of “making mistakes”?

    What’s the lesson learned and who is paying the tuition when the result is lethal? The children that starve to death haven’t learned anything. Are they starving as an object lesson for US?

    Have you considered that the only reason famines are something that “we can do something about” is because of modern technology? For the overwhelming majority of human history there have been diseases and famines that no one could do anything about. Who was god teaching then?

  • FromUpNorth

    Sure, we all deserve death, but I don’t think any rational member of humanity would say that children/infants deserve death.

    If “we all” deserve death, then even children/infants deserve death. I like to think of myself as a rational member of humanity, which is why I would claim that we don’t all deserve death.

    And I don’t think that God wants children to starve, but what would you have him do? Clean up every time after you’ve made a mess of the world? As a loving parent I have to allow my children to make mistakes, how else are they going to learn from there mistakes.

    If I had been an Irishman at the time of the Great Famine, I would have had God not allow the potato crop to fail — or rather, not cause the potato crop to fail. If my children had died as a result of the famine, what was the mistake God would have wanted me to learn from — the mistake of trying to make my living by growing potatoes, or the mistake of being Catholic?

    What was the mistake that he wanted my newborn child to learn from, by dying — even if, as you assert, the child did not deserve to die? Why not argue that the child deserved to die precisely because it was innocent, that it was better off dead, because death is nothing but an illusion, a transition from a lower to a high form of being?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    I assume that the above is an attempt on your part at a gratuitous insult, since it is obviously not an attempt at continued serious discussion. In respect to such behavior, are you a typical Christian?

    You’re obviously not a starving child, I’m pretty sure there are none posting comments on this blog…. and of course starving children want to be feed, but are you dedicating your entire life to eradicating child poverty?

    Is this a serious discussion? It started with a picture that is designed to be humorous, right?

    Am I a typical Christian? That depends on what you call typical. Do I dedicate my whole life to eradicating child poverty? No, so I’m a hypocritical Christian.

    Do I go to church every Sunday? Mostly, but I also enjoy Zombie graphic novels and horror movies, violent computer games… so I’m a bloodthirsty Christian.

    I’ll probably fit in a box or two that you try and fit me in, but a typical Christian, I wouldn’t call myself that.

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    Would you allow your children to die in the process of “making mistakes”?

    Well, um, let me think about that… No.

    Possibly i used a bad analogy.

    But hey, I’m human, I’ll try and learn from my mistakes.

  • FromUpNorth

    But hey, I’m human, I’ll try and learn from my mistakes.

    Just as long as it doesn’t require someone to starve to death in the process.

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    Just as long as it doesn’t require someone to starve to death in the process.

    I’m hoping that’s a joke, because if we really want to be serious, we all (at least those of us living in the so called ‘West’) are guilty of requiring ‘someone to starve to death’ so that we can have our comfortable way of life.

  • FromUpNorth

    Is this a serious discussion? It started with a picture that is designed to be humorous, right?

    It uses humor to make a completely serious point — one that I sense you haven’t thought about enough up to now, although maybe you are beginning to do so.

    In 2004, a tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed an estimated 225,000 people. Did they die because God refused to prevent the tsunami, or did they die because Godcaused the tsunami?

    In a world supposedly created by an omnipotent and omniscient God, aren’t “acts of God” such as the tsunami precisely that? If God is both omnipotent and omniscient, would it not be true that those 225,000 people must have died because God wanted them to? How could it be otherwise?

  • FromUpNorth

    I’m hoping that’s a joke, because if we really want to be serious, we all (at least those of us living in the so called ‘West’) are guilty of requiring ’someone to starve to death’ so that we can have our comfortable way of life.

    This is quite true (at least up to a point), but of course God wouldn’t have to give up a “comfortable way of life” to prevent human starvation, would he?

    Perhaps we can atone for our guilt by sending out missionaries to preach to them: ” Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    So, FromUpNorth, you believe in acts of God, but not God?

    ;o)

    The argument is really a dead end street, you can only see God as being either evil or impotent, and nothing will change that for you. I’m similarly one eyed in believing that God loves everyone.

    As for sending missionaries overseas, why not do the dirty work yourself. Why don’t you go overseas and feed the thousands, tell them that God doesn’t exist, but you’ll feed them instead.

    Or you could start of simpler, by choosing to buy fair trade goods where ever possible, maybe sponsoring a child in a holistic way that benefits the whole community – I’m sure there must be some non-religious organisations that do this.

    Or you could just keep going on blaming God for everything bad that happens and not bother doing anything to help those oppressed by God.

  • FromUpNorth

    The argument is really a dead end street, you can only see God as being either evil or impotent, and nothing will change that for you.

    Say again? Atheists see God as neither evil nor impotent. They see God as non-existent.

    I’m similarly one eyed in believing that God loves everyone.

    One-eyed, or blind? Consider the following characteristics attributed to God by Christians:

    1. God is omnipotent.
    2. God is omniscient.
    3. God created us and everything else that exists.
    4. God loves us all.

    If God actually existed, and if God indeed had all of those characteristics, then it would follow that the death of a child by starvation, or the death of 225,000 people as a result of a tsunami, must, in some way, be manifestations of God’s love for us all. The atheist finds it curious that the Christian must either believe such a peculiar thing, or not believe it because he (the Christian) has failed to follow the simple logic of the commonly attributed characteristics of God to their inescapable conclusion.

    From the arguments you have advanced, you appear to fall into the camp of those Christians who would assert that the death of thousands of children from starvation, or the mass deaths of hundreds of thousands of coastal inhabitants as a result of a tsunami, are manifestations of God’s love for us all. Is this correct?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com Jonathan

    FromUpNorth: Imagine you are driving down the freeway and suddenly a girl rushes into the road, there’s nothing you can do and you slam into that girl killing her instantly. Why did you hate that girl so much that you killed her?

  • ash

    ‘scuse me for gatecrashing…

    imagine i am driving down the freeway. i am omniscient, so know a girl will shortly rush into the road. i am omnipotent, so completely able to avoid harming her. i choose not to exercise either power, so slam into her, killing her instantly.

    so, either i have those powers and choose not to exercise them, or i do not have those powers, making this analogy (and by comparison, this understanding of a god) utterly pointless. maybe the real question should be, knowing this, why would you choose to worship me? why is this idea of a god even relevant?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com Jonathan

    I think the problem is (besides this argument going in an eternal cyclic motion) is that you all want you cake and eat it too.

    You want free will but you won’t take responsibility for your actions.

    Instead you blame God.

    Why are children starving in Africa? Because of western greed.

    Do you really want God to come down a sort out the world, cause if he did he might decide that to feed all the starving children in Africa, he has to let you go, so to speak.

    Why does God, as you say, let the starving children die? I don’t know (and no, that’s not an admission that he does just let them die). Why do I worship such a God? Because I don’t focus on the children that have died, rather I focus on the children that can be helped.

    It’s not that I ignore those that have died, it pains me every time I hear a news story about the rising rate of domestic violence towards children in NZ.

    It pains me because I have three children of my own. One that society calls gifted, one that society calls normal, and one that society calls mentally disabled. And I can see God in everyone of them.

    But this is something that you may never understand, in much the same way that some one who has seen the evidence of God cannot understand why an atheist spends their whole life trying to believe that there is no God.

  • FromUpNorth

    FromUpNorth: Imagine you are driving down the freeway and suddenly a girl rushes into the road, there’s nothing you can do and you slam into that girl killing her instantly. Why did you hate that girl so much that you killed her?

    It cannot be inferred from the evidence provided that I hated the girl. Of course, you could have set up the initial conditions such that I did — did she torture my dog to death yesterday? But, moving along….

    You say that there there was nothing I could have done. Given the characteristics typically ascribed to God by Christians, this must be true, because there was never anything I could have done. God, being omniscient, knew at the moment he created the universe (was that 13.7 billion years ago, or 6,011 years ago?) that I would
    kill the girl at that time, in that place, and in that way. And yet, being omnipotent, he could have created a universe in which this particular event would not happen. It is difficult to conclude, therefore, anything other than that the universe in which I would kill the girl at that time, in that place, and in that way must have been precisely the universe that he wanted — and that, because God loves us all, that this event must in some way manifest that love.

  • FromUpNorth

    I think the problem is (besides this argument going in an eternal cyclic motion) is that you all want you cake and eat it too.

    You want free will but you won’t take responsibility for your actions.

    Instead you blame God.

    You’re still not gettin’ it. Atheists don’t blame God for anything. They do not believe in the existence of the entity posited.

    Why are children starving in Africa? Because of western greed.

    Do you really want God to come down a sort out the world, cause if he did he might decide that to feed all the starving children in Africa, he has to let you go, so to speak.

    It seems to me that you are the one who is trying to have his cake and eat it too. You don’t want a God who “comes down” to sort out the world, because that (you claim) would interfere with the free will of those of us who fail to sort it out ourselves. You want a God who places a higher value on free will of the survivors than on the lives of children who starve to death — and yet you want to absolve God of all responsibility for the starvation of the children. Doesn’t work. Assuming that God himself has free will (would you want to argue that he doesn’t?), hasn’t he freely chosen to place a higher value on free will than on thge lives of children? In that case, God, if he exists must at the very least share responsibility for the deaths of children.

    Now, I suppose that God, if he actually existed, could in fact provide sufficient food for the children in Africa without interfering with anyone’s free will. After all, the proximate cause of starvation in Africa is not “Western greed,” but a shortage of food in Africa — something that God, if he existed, could easily prevent while allowing Westerners the free will to be as greedy as they wished.

    Why does God, as you say, let the starving children die? I don’t know (and no, that’s not an admission that he does just let them die).

    Of course it is. You ‘re trying to have your cake and eat it to — a God who absolutely lets starving children die, and yet absolutely does not let starving children die.

    But this is something that you may never understand, in much the same way that some one who has seen the evidence of God cannot understand why an atheist spends their whole life trying to believe that there is no God.

    Nope, you’re just not gettin’ it. Atheists don’t “try to believe” that there is no God. We simply do not believe that there is a God.

    Suppose you tried to believe that there was no God. Could you do it? Go ahead, I’m sure it won’t kill you — for the next five minutes, try to believe that there is no God. How did that go for you? Were you successfully able to believe that there is no God by trying to believe it?

  • Mriana

    Are these theists arguing about God? I couldn’t tell with my last post and I can’t tell with this one.

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    After God created this beautiful sunset, He decided to let thousands of starving children die.

    That’s what started this whole line of discussion. After God created… This discussion has been based on the assumption that there is a God, but that he is too evil to worship. So, if We simply do not believe that there is a God, why are you trying to argue that this God that you don’t believe in is a really bad God?

    One of my favorite quotes, that no one really knows if it’s true or not, but that makes a statement that you can relate to is this:

    If you can’t preach it in the Manila Slums, it ain’t worth preaching.

    Taking that line of thought, I’d like to suggest that next time you want to argue about how awful this God that you apparently don’t believe in, is, that you should apply your reasoning to more than one situation.

    It’s easy for the prosperity gospel to be preached to the rich, but it won’t mean nothing in the slums. It’s also easy to make God look bad by bringing up the cause of a billion starving children.

    But why not apply the same reasoning to another growing killer: obesity. Obesity is fast becoming the number one killer in western society. Why not apply your reasoning that if God is all loving etc, he would step in and solve the obesity problem.

    But then I guess it’s easier for people to grasp that most fat people are fat because of poor diet and exercise, where as children starving to death is somehow only something that a loving God can do anything about.

    And one final questions to kick the weekend off with (and hey, I may even post your answer on my blog ;o)

    If I were to sincerely say that I was going to pray for you over the weekend, would you take that as an insult (because you don’t believe in my God) or as a nice gesture, or would you just assume that I’m only going to be asking God to ‘save’ your soul?

  • FromUpNorth

    After God created this beautiful sunset, He decided to let thousands of starving children die.

    That’s what started this whole line of discussion. After God created… This discussion has been based on the assumption that there is a God, but that he is too evil to worship. So, if We simply do not believe that there is a God, why are you trying to argue that this God that you don’t believe in is a really bad God?

    I think there’s very good reason to suppose that the image in question was created by an atheist, as a pointed dig at the logical implications of the theological tenets of orthodox Christianity. If you wish to continue to believe that it was created, not by an atheist, but by a fellow theist, I wouldn’t argue the point. I would simply wonder whether you were, perhaps, a bit irony-impaired.

    If I were to sincerely say that I was going to pray for you over the weekend, would you take that as an insult (because you don’t believe in my God) or as a nice gesture, or would you just assume that I’m only going to be asking God to ’save’ your soul?

    Would you take it as an insult if I were to sincerely respond by referring you to another image from the same site where the “After God created this beautiful sunset…” image came from?

  • http://my-faith.blogspot.com/ Jonathan

    Insult? No, that’s a funny poster. Funny because it can be taken any number of ways. Being a Christian that believes in the value of prayer, but one who will admit to struggling with prayer from time to time, it does resonate with the way I have felt sometimes. On the other hand, knowing what kids (and a lot of adults are like) I can imagine the kid asking God for an XBox 360 for Christmas and God (being like a father) not listening, instead waiting for some heart felt request of what the boy really wants.

    You did of course manage to avoid answering my question ;o)

  • FromUpNorth

    You did of course manage to avoid answering my question ;o)

    Oh, you’re welcome to pray for me all you like this weekend. Just make sure to pray for something that’s actually possible. You’ll be praying to God, so it’s not as though you can expect miracles

  • Eric

    After all, the proximate cause of starvation in Africa is not “Western greed,” but a shortage of food in Africa — something that God, if he existed, could easily prevent while allowing Westerners the free will to be as greedy as they wished.

    Your an idiot.. There is only a shortage of food in Africa because of evil political greed. There is more than enough food in the world to feed every man, women and child. Evil is the primary cause of starvation and death not God but Satan who Christians have called the “lord of this world” you atheists on here who try to use the logic of if God is Good then why do bad things happens obviously haven’t read the bible or have any idea of the things he has communicated to man. Which is that Evil is the root cause of all these bad things not God. Why does God allow Evil? well we don’t have an answer to that besides “free will” but if Satan rebelled against god why would God put Satan in his new creation the earth? why not the countless suns or planets out there? It don’t make sense its like he gave us free will but he played a mean trick on us by making us on a earth with a sly being called “Satan” if god loves the earth so much and loves us why would he let us inhabit this rock with the source of “Evil”? The first humans God made succumbed to the brilliant tricks of Satan what chance did humans really have? Doesn’t this seem like one big trick to anyone? God makes humans who will never die, living as we all know in our hearts we should live in paradise with no pain, he provides us with a women with no effort, sex with no effort, yet he gives one rule don’t eat a fucking fruit of knowledge. again why would God even make a tree with a fruit of knowledge? for any other purpose than to give us a “choice” I mean we were set up weren’t we? Then with Satan the snake around the corner what chance did humans have? Sooner or later he would have caused on human to eat the fruit and then it was all over, anyways here is my point.

    1. God makes a world he calls great and humans who he loves.
    2. He sends a evil entity who only wants to cause suffering and destruction as we know it to his earth which he has just called good.

    right there that makes no logical sense why he would send Satan to his “good” earth

    2. Hurricanes,Hunger,Genocide,Death
    even when Satan roamed the earth for those early years none of this death happened so humans could live in paradise with no death even with Satan there also.

    3. The reason all those bad things happen is God cursed the earth not Satan God said you will die God said you will labor in pain and sweat, God said you will cling to one another.

    4. God called Satan the “ruler of this world” Satan tricked the whole world by the mere fact that evil happens on a large scale all through ideology i.e Satan will guide people and convince them to action to do his evil and destruction when they believe its ok. ie. Hitler and the fact that most people on this earth are not Christians. This proves Satan has control of the earth according to the bible of course.

    anyways my point is why does God threaten us will eternal dammnation in fire of all things, for not accepting him when the rules for this are not clear but are up for interpritation. Its not like were faced with a choice of not eating or eating an apple, we have to basically accept Jesus i guess but the fact is that salvation is not clear it is widely argued in the Christian community of what saves you. ie baptism or fath. it doesnt make sense why God makes it so hard by these facts.

    anyways here is my view on things a time line if u must.

    God makes the earth and calls it good
    God makes humans on the earth.
    Satan used to be a helper of God but he rebelled with other helpers
    God sends Satan to dwell on the earth and the spirits who followed him
    God has man in a state of constant paradise
    God makes a tree of knowledge which bears fruit near the man and women
    God tells the humans not to eat from the tree not because it was poison and he laked the ability to move it but for most people as a test?
    Satan quickly tricks the humans to eat the fruit.
    God places a curse on man and the earth.
    God sentences man to death and then it is unknown what would happen to them no talk of hell or afterlife.
    God destroys people a few times because he sees them turning out bad and not as he wanted.
    God sends Jesus which is him in human form, its like he came down just to see what it was like to be a human. and “redeem” us
    God comes with a message to humans telling them about him is confusing language and a confusing book.
    this book and his words as “Jesus” describe how we can make up for our ancestor “adam” for eating the piece of fruit” and again enter this paradise this time without Satan and anything to do with him.
    Those who fullfill the rules of Gods “book” and commands through “Jesus” who only he will decide get to enter this new eternal paradise.

    All others will enter hell with Satan

    Now MY FINAL POINT IS WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT OF ALL THIS? WAS IT A BIG EXPERIMENT TO PLAY GAMES WITH A CREATION?
    WHY GIVE HUMANS WHO ARENT THAT SMART A COMMAND TO NOT EAT AN APPLE JUST TO TEST THEM WHEN A GREAT SUPER HUMAN CON ARTIST WAS JUST GOING TO TRICK THEM IN MINUTES OF BEING THERE! THEN SENTENCE THEM TO THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF SATAN AND HIS CURSE AND THEN OFFER THEM ANOTHER CHANCE THROUGH SKETCHY COMMANDS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM A CRAZY MAN IN THE EARTHS EYES. AND IF WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THESE INSTRUCTIONS THEN WE BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY WHICH IS WORSE THAT SUFFERING ON EARTH OF GO TO HEAVEN WHICH IS PARADISE,
    THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!! WERE BEING FUCKED WITH SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!

  • Mriana

    Now MY FINAL POINT IS WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT OF ALL THIS? WAS IT A BIG EXPERIMENT TO PLAY GAMES WITH A CREATION?
    WHY GIVE HUMANS WHO ARENT THAT SMART A COMMAND TO NOT EAT AN APPLE JUST TO TEST THEM WHEN A GREAT SUPER HUMAN CON ARTIST WAS JUST GOING TO TRICK THEM IN MINUTES OF BEING THERE! THEN SENTENCE THEM TO THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF SATAN AND HIS CURSE AND THEN OFFER THEM ANOTHER CHANCE THROUGH SKETCHY COMMANDS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM A CRAZY MAN IN THE EARTHS EYES. AND IF WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THESE INSTRUCTIONS THEN WE BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY WHICH IS WORSE THAT SUFFERING ON EARTH OF GO TO HEAVEN WHICH IS PARADISE,
    THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!! WERE BEING FUCKED WITH SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!

    For a theist, your language is atrocious. For an atheist, it’s surprising. I’m amazed a theist would talk that way. I had no idea the religious used such language.

    WERE BEING FUCKED WITH SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!

    Oh I guess we’ll get to see an immaculate conception then. :lol:

  • Eric

    did I say I was “religious” believing in God and being part of a religion are two different things. you see we as humans are so caught up in culture that we cant see the truth.

  • malvin

    Earth produces 5 times more food than required by every one on earth. If people wastes and dumb food through arrogance and do not care to share with needy, We have to understand that richness and poverty are just two testing phases by God.

  • malvin

    “And when they are told, “Spend out of (the bounties) with which God has provided you,” the Unbelievers say to those who believe: “Shall we then feed those whom, if God had so willed, He would have fed, (Himself)?- You are in nothing but manifest error.”

  • Sidelines

    WOW. Some people really don’t understand satire and irony. Based on the posts listed, both sides seem to be running a pretty simplistic arguement pattern. “If God is all powerful, why doesn’t he fix everything – therefore he must not be all powerful, therefore he cannot be God” blah blah blah. The counter arguements are sadly worse. “Its His will, It’s our free will”. Again, pablum and excuses.

    The reality is, neither side can “prove” the other is wrong and to attempt to do so is idiotic. Because of this, I lean towards the agnostic camp. Is there a God, multiple gods, a whole panopoly? I don’t know. I can’t PROVE it either way. Historically, most people are the religeon they are because their parents were. Thus, children born in the Middle East will tend to believe in Allah. Those born in Georgia will believe in Christ/God/Holy Spirit. Those of New Dehli, will gravitate towards Vishnu ect. Which one is the ONE and TRUE way? No one knows. Odds are, none of them. But as even the most ardent Atheist must agree, it cannot be PROVEN. Likewise, faith based efforts fail this same test.

    In summary, the arguements here are silly. And the picture/quote is funny. Leave it at that.

  • Kristen

    I just wanted to say congratulations to Simon and Sidelines, who may be the only people to understand the point behind the initial post. It is a humorous way to approach a delicate topic and should be taken as such. I am not an athiest, but I do believe that people need to accept other’s religious views rather than arguing about who is right. The inability to do so does not make you look passionate, nor does it make you correct. It simply makes you look like an a**.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X